May 10, 2011

Here, in Madison, in the midst of a concealed carry debate, a local liberal (Stu Levitan) comes out with a statement that would be a career-ender if it came from a conservative, and a local conservative (Dave Blaska) refrains from "going 'all-Madison'" on him. What Levitan wrote:

I think it would be fun to have 2 or 3 dangerous-looking black guys testify next week in support of concealed carry. The more gang-banger the better. Let the committee know EXACTLY who they'll be letting carry guns.

Actually, this ploy would be great. It would underscore the importance of concealed carry in every demographic kind of community, not just suburban and rural areas. Gang activity is likely to be much more circumspect if gang members lack confidence in the vulnerability of the population they move in. Arming the general population likely has more of an effect on gang behavior than permitting the already-armed gang members would have on the general population. If performing a lefty political stunt can highlight yet another demographic that would benefit from concealed carry, then lets get out of their way!

Is it even the least bit surprising that the liberals are the real racists? Every liberal initiative of the last 40 years is based on the belief that minorities, especially blacks, are inferior to white people in every way.

The bitter-clingers will be thrown into a quandry by the combination of black persons and guns. Which way to go? They will be confused. It will be FUN.

What would really happen (and should really happen) is that the concealed carry lobby *should* find some black people to testify about full citizenship and the right to bear arms... it would be FUN to rub Levitan's nose in it.

Where are they going to get these scary black men anyway? From the coverage of the union protests this winter/spring it seems that there aren't any black people in Wisconsin. I guess they'll import some from Michigan for the meeting.

"Every liberal initiative of the last 40 years is based on the belief that minorities, especially blacks, are inferior to white people in every way."

Yep, affirmative action is special olympics. With the spcial olympics, there really is an exception, a handicap, an extraordinary challenge. But faux racism has become a drug to keep black's addicted to OPM. Not all thank God, but way too many.

And racial set asides and quotas and such are based on the prinicple that minorities are unable to compete. Which is bigotry of the most pernicious kind.

Yep, it all makes sense. Because only scary black guys are gang-bangers, and they don't carry guns now('cause it's illegal, y'know), but they will if the law passes! And nobody else will, except 'bangers and such.

Let's say that what he said is a straight-up representation of what and how he thinks.

1. "Dangerous-looking" people pose a threat, whereas unremarkable-looking people don't -- this in a college town where art students may "look dangerous" but actual rapists hiding in a parking structure, or muggers off the main drag, will likely strive to be unobtrusive.

2. "Black guys" are uniquely scary. Note that he didn't picture midwestern white trash thugs, as depicted on The Simpsons.

3. Gang-bangers are law-abiding and therefore don't carry guns because they don't have permits. Dangerous gang-bangers somehow have the squeaky-clean criminal records generally required to obtain a CC permit.

Actually as someone who has spent time in Minneapolis and St Paul, which has C-C, I can tell you that the gang bangers don't have carry permits. Black, white, hispanic, or Hmong. It's kind of technicality that they don't care about.

ironrailsironweights said...What are the typical middle-class suburban white person's chances of being murdered by a ghetto gangbanger? My reasoned guess is that being struck by a meteor is a much more likely cause of death.

==============Then you would be ignorant and wrong. Almost half the murders of "typical middle class white (Asian, immigrant,, etc) are by black thugs. Not to mention "decent people" amongst the illegal immigrant communities.Or a predominace of slain foreign tourists ignorant of the truly dangerous times and parts of a city.

If you are white or Asian or an illegal and victim of an armed robbery, odds are it is a black thug.

Comments on the original blogpost by Levitan show pushback. (I'm not linking to the blogpost because Althouse didn't, and I'm assuming that's for a reason. You can see it by following the link from the article Althouse did post here.)

"Paul, the KKK was one of the biggest gun control advocates ever. They did not want African-Americans to legally own firearms."

The oppressed are disarmed. Look at History, over and over and over. Being allowed a weapon is for the upper class only, for the rulers, for the owners. In more egalitarian societies it signified the fact of citizenship and even a poor citizen could go armed, but a slave could not. (Yes, I just paired "egalitarian" with "slavery." History is like that.)

The 2nd Ammendment is about freedom and liberty. REALLY. I know that a whole lot of people don't see that. They think it's about something else and no one should mind at all being disarmed for the greater good.

Sometimes principles mean having to make yourself uncomfortable. You just have to do it anyway, grit your teeth and do it. Of course we don't *trust* all of our fellow citizens, but the fact that we don't isn't a good enough reason to decide that we've a right to disarm them, not without a darn good cause. Being uncomfortable is not a darn good cause.

The same is true with speech. Too many people want to control speech because they don't like what other people have to say.

KenK: I had that issue initially too but when I tried again later I reached the linked page. Oddly, it seems as if this problem is sporadic. Maybe there are traffic issues and that's how that site responds to such. Seems odd to me, but I can't think what else it could be.

Regarding Garbage's ravings, is it just me [I don't live in WI] or weren't the past two concealed carry laws that were passed by the WI Legislature and vetoed by a Dem governor passed with Dem votes, too? Weren't the Dems in the majority in both houses?

Sounds like you've nothing to worry about then Garage. Your precious recall will reassert the true Will Of The People as will Kloppenburg's delegitimizing of Prosser's win

There is plenty to worry about as long as Governor Douchenozzle is still the governor. Obviously this voter ID nonsense is being passed just in time for the recalls. Another law costing millions that supposedly we have no money for.

@chickelit : I'm not surprised. This is not the first time, by a long shot, I've run across stuff like this--including as far back as my own college days/college-town living days. The double standard and amount of projection, alas, should not amaze, though I must confess it still does from time to time. Like now.

I'm a 6'7", 270 lb. black man and I live in Racine. No doubt that qualifies me to drive up to Madison next week to testify at the hearing. I'll have to work on the "dangerous looking" "gangbanger" part unless that's of course the default assumption of Madison liberals.

As was noted above, criminals don't care about the law. Gangbangers of any hue will be carrying concealed regardless of any law. That's why so many people have been shot and killed or injured in Chicago where guns of any kind were banned.

On my way in every morning I pass a van plastered with bumper stickers insulting conservatives. In a prominent location is the sticker "Hate is a family value". You just have to shake your head in wonderment at the lack of self awareness.

Levitan apologizes . . . Wonder if he gives others the same grace on the right? (rhetorical)

"From Stu Levitan on 05/09/11 at 11:12 pmI've thought about it some more, and I know now that the problem is with the third sentence of my original post. I am very against concealed carry, and I meant to play on the racial fears that I believe others have in supporting it; but I expressed myself so poorly that some mistakenly attribute those racial fears to me. I now understand how someone could find the sentence itself racist, and I'm very sorry about that. I still think it's unfair and inaccurate to call me a racist, and I cite my body of work over the past 40 years in my defense. But I do acknowledge that the third sentence of my post could be considered racist, and I apologize for it."

Progressive Jews like Stu Levitan are always fond of employing the spectre of dangerous blacks they "control" as a threat of violent black tool consequences unless new welfare is not granted, New Orleans is not done over as "the 6th Quarter demands", gun laws not continually passed.

The progressive Jews and their "dangerous black allies" was a concept created in the early 1900s by communists. Jews would be the minds and leaders of the Revolution, blacks the mindless animalistic muscle, a construct thought to leverage their power and minimize their own personal danger of violent revolution by allying with and controlling the dumb Negro. The Negro would then benefit from being on the frontlines busting heads or threatening to, for better wages and conditions - and the Jews awarded power to help control the violent Negroes, would in turn uplift the Negro in the bargain. And if the Negro went too far and got too violent in pushing the Progressive Revolution, only Negro heads would be busted in reprisal.

(Worked fine until Negroes in the late 60s began pushing Jews out of position of dominant power over the Negro in the civil rights fronts Jews created and from the "top tier jobs" in government and retail and professions in black communities.)

Stu Levitan will get away with it because it is a long established progressive narrative - do what we progressives want or face the physical peril of angry blacks - of unlimited moral authority born of class and race oppression.

A couple years black Sandra Bernhard played the same "better watch your step Palin you white bitch because I will round up a posse of the meanest dumbest homies you never saw in you lily-white state". To roaring cheers at the DC Jewish Center, more specifically: "You set foot in Manhattan and I will put my black brothers that I round up, to gang-raping your ass".

Bernhard got away with it. It would have ended the career of a non-Jew talking about rounding up Muslims for raping Hillary's big ass. But Avi Roth of the Jewish Center said it was all good, including an equally vile anti-Christian diatribe.

The Left is going to find out just how hollow the racist charge has become in November 2012 when Barry gets his ass whupped. I said find out and not learn because they will never learn that race is not front and center in others minds. And that's a good thing in that they will continue screaming racist long after the charge has lost its impact. For all but the beautiful people the racist charge simply means a liberal is losing an argument.

I meant to play on the racial fears that I believe others have in supporting it;

As Brian says, he continues to be racist while saying he's not. He admits his argument is built upon racism and he hopes to exploit racism to win his argument. He also clearly shows his bigotry agasint those who disagree with his postion. They must be racists to support the 2nd ammendment.

Out in the country where I live, the odds of seeing a black person on my road are slim and none. But, there are plenty of questionable white folks. Adding that to a few dangerous wild animals is why I completed the Ohio CCW class a couple of weeks ago.

About the only pushback against Sandra Bernhard came from some blacks who highly resented the casting of them in her "anti-Palin" comedy as mindless sexually lusting animals who would heed a sort of white womans demand to band together as "natural gang rapists"..playing to the worst stereotypes of blacks as oversexed monsters and brain dead children easily made catspaws of "wiser peoples".

A few conservative black ministers were doubly offended by Bernhard when she slammed Christians as a stupid people who had no business taking and perverting the Jewish bible. That if a white or black minister or comedian said the same about Jews or Muslims they would be universally condemned.

They never got much traction as the progressive media closed ranks around a Tribal member and said she was just doing genius comedy.

Not anymore, and that's what's changed about the word and the charge. It now only has to be any statement involving a minority and any unfortunate accompanying info, unless said statement is part of a request for money going to said minority.

Conceal carry and Voter ID being fast-tracked before Dems take control of the Senate. There must be some dreadful internal polling they/re looking at.

The left is suddenly so married to the religious BELIEF that Nov 2010 was an aberration and the voters are all filled with HORRIFIC remorse about voting in all those conservative Republicans. That's the meme right? Well Rush dispelled that yesterday during a monologue. He told us to simply not worry about it. If the elections were all held again today, the GOP would win.

Keep in mind it was Dixie DEMOCRATS that wanted blacks to be at the back of the bus. It was DEMOCRATS who were against the civil rights acts.

Never forget that the Democratic Party was founded by slave owners, supported slavery, north and south, until the end of the Civil War, provided most of the Klan members over time, imposed Jim Crow laws, provided most of the votes against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, etc.

So, why is anyone surprised that a political party that was founded on racism and had racism as a central tenet throughout most of its 200 years, is trying to stay in power through racism?

Because everyone knows that those gang-bangers in places where there's shall-issue carry all have permits.

Wait? You tell me that none of them do, since they typically all have felony records and/or simply don't care about the law, being gangbangers?

I am shocked to hear that!

(And what Synova and the rest said - his statement tells us at least as much about what he thinks of The Average Madisonian thinks about black people who Look A Little Rough a it tells us about his personal beliefs.

And neither's real flattering on the race front - but then again, I don't like people who look like thugs, regardless of their skin color. Where I live they're a lot more likely to be white...)

Shirley Sherrod would be a great person to talk about right to bear arms - don't you all remember in her unedited Breitbart video where she talked about how her brothers came out with guns when a white mob was threatening her family?

A realist would admit that no amount of gun control laws will keep criminals from acquiring and using guns to commit crime. That same realist would have to admit only law-abiding citizens are impacted. An intellectually honest realist might even admit that crime drops in areas where the criminals know the citizens are armed in large numbers.

The progressive Jews and their "dangerous black allies" was a concept created in the early 1900s by communists. Jews would be the minds and leaders of the Revolution, blacks the mindless animalistic muscle...

"I would add to the list the number of terrorist on the watch list who have already been able to buy automatic weapons, now what does that make me, a realist or a racist?"

You can get on the watch list without committing any crime. Are you fine with some faceless bureaucrat being able to deny a citizen his rights without any kind of judicial proceeding? I think that would strike many as rather authoritarian.

Garage: But Levitan is a racist, right? You are quick, very quick, with the racist slur but here you suggest an apology will do. Is that how it works? A racist is fine by you as long as the racist apologizes?

And this lefty turd, Levitan, is clearly a racist, absolutely and without a doubt a racist. An apology won't work. A racist is a racist and a lefty racist is still a racist.

Liberals need to keep blacks down on the plantation (to steal a term from Hillary). Once enough blacks realize that freedom has much more to offer them than dependency on the government, the Democrats are sunk.

I am very against concealed carry, and I meant to play on the racial fears that I believe others have in supporting it

I can honestly say -- and let me add that I live in the South, where there are a few more black citizens than in Madison -- that when I took the class and applied for and got my CCW permit, it never even showed on the horizon of my unconscious to do it because of 2 or 3 dangerous-looking black guys

And if the "2 or 3 dangerous looking black guys" take the course and get the background check why wouldn't they be allowed to carry?